1. The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the appellants/opposite parties being aggrieved of the order dated 15.03.2023, passed by the learned West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (for short the 'State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 844 of 2019.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants on the delay condonation application being IA/11208/2025.

3. As per the appellants there is a delay of 848 days in filing of this first appeal but as per the office report there is a delay of 714 days, beyond the prescribed period of thirty days.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the delay was caused for the reason that the impugned order was an ex-parte order. The appellants came to know about the order when the appellants received the notice of execution proceedings on 12.03.2024. After receiving the notice, the delay was caused for the reason that the appellant being a senior citizen, suffering from many ailments therefore the appeal could not be filed in time. The delay was also caused for the reason that the appellant sought legal advice from one Advocate but unfortunately, the learned counsel passed away in a tragic accident in September, 2024. The appellant again is suffering with so many diseases and due to ill-health, the appeal could not be filed with expediency. Hence the delay is not a deliberate delay and that may be condoned.

5. Considered the submissions so made and perused the record.

6. The impugned order was passed on 15.03.2023 and this appeal has been filed on 28.03.2025. Admittedly, the appellant received the information about the impugned order on 12.03.2024 when he received the notice of execution proceedings. After receiving the said notice on 12.03.2024, there is a huge delay in filing of the present appeal.

7. The reasons given and submissions made for condonation of delay after receiving the notice of execution proceedings are not convincing and sufficient enough to condone a delay of 714 days as the appellant is company having sufficient wherewithal.

8. Being a Consumer dispute, such condonation would defeat the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act. This is a Consumer Complaint related matter and has to be decided in a time bound manner and condoning delay beyond a reasonable time, without sufficient cause, would go against the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act.

In Lingeswaran Etc. vs. Thirunagalinman, Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054- 2055/2022, decided on 25.02.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

                          "We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same."

                          In Brijesh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2014 (11) SCC 351, it was held in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as under:

                          7. The issues of limitation, delay and laches as well as condonation of such delay are being examined and explained every day by the Courts.

                          The law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim "Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit FinisLitium" (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of Limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

                          8. The Privy Council in General Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, AIR 1941 PC 6, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lectures 1932 wherein it has been said that "a law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on applicable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognised by law."

                          9. In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Apex Court while considering a case of condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay had been given, held as under:-

                          "Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds."

9. In the aforementioned circumstances, the delay condonation application is hereby rejected consequently the present first appeal is also dismissed at the admission stage itself, being time-barred.

Interim applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Let the file be consigned in the record room after necessary action.